Maryland AWB case Snope v Brown going to SCOTUS. (Formerly Bianchi v Brown & Bianchi v Frosh)

VTski4x4 said:
If they don't grant cert, they never will. This case is as primed and ready as you can get. Already been granted cert, was sent back on appeal, and now it's back.
Click to expand...
Unlikely to be true.

For cases of this magnitude and public interest, it is common practice for there to be a first conference with an informal poll to see if there are enough Justices interested in taking the case. Chief Justice Roberts will typically instruct all of the associates to have their clerks dive into the procedural minutiae of the case to be sure there are no issues with the case from a procedural position that will give rise to anyone questioning the validity of the ruling. This will cause the case to be relisted 1-2 times on the Monday following the conference, and believe it or not, this is a good thing.
 
These cases seem primed and ready to go, at least the Snopes v Brown case, so I just can't see a reason why not to take this case or all 3. The Supreme Court knows how the lower courts are all over the map with rulings regarding the 2A so if not this time to set the record straight then when!? And in addition, some states have really been thumbing their nose's at the Bruen ruling and I can't see how the Court wouldn't feel disrespected by that
 
Snope was already vacated and remanded after Bruen, so now that it's back there's a chance the court grants cert, certainly more so than the RI magazine case which this is the first time it has been appealed up to SCOTUS. Tho, let's say the court takes up Snope and strikes down AWB and does the V&R for the magazine case... does the court really think what they rule and the guidance in the Snope case is going to change anything with how the lower courts have ruled on magazine capacity laws? I think not, the only facet of the RI case is the lack of grandfathering, which is a wholesale ban on any magazine over 10 rounds. AFAIK, that's among the most draconian of all the more recent magazine capacity laws in the nation.

Does SCOTUS really care about that? IDK, they might, but this court seems pretty content with not touching state based restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, so until they grand cert on a state level regulation affecting the 2nd Amendment, I am not convinced they have any interest or intent to ever do so.
 
T-Unit said:
Snope was already vacated and remanded after Bruen, so now that it's back there's a chance the court grants cert, certainly more so than the RI magazine case which this is the first time it has been appealed up to SCOTUS. Tho, let's say the court takes up Snope and strikes down AWB and does the V&R for the magazine case... does the court really think what they rule and the guidance in the Snope case is going to change anything with how the lower courts have ruled on magazine capacity laws? I think not, the only facet of the RI case is the lack of grandfathering, which is a wholesale ban on any magazine over 10 rounds. AFAIK, that's among the most draconian of all the more recent magazine capacity laws in the nation.

Does SCOTUS really care about that? IDK, they might, but this court seems pretty content with not touching state based restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, so until they grand cert on a state level regulation affecting the 2nd Amendment, I am not convinced they have any interest or intent to ever do so.
Click to expand...
The lack of grandfathering only creates a takings issue if, and only if, a ban on standard capacity magazines were found to be constitutional.
If magazines are found to be within the 2nd's "unqualified" umbrella of protection then grandfathering is irrelevant since any law restricting magazines would be unconstitutional.
 
pastera said:
The lack of grandfathering only creates a takings issue if, and only if, a ban on standard capacity magazines were found to be constitutional.
If magazines are found to be within the 2nd's "unqualified" umbrella of protection then grandfathering is irrelevant since any law restricting magazines would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you, I bet if magazine bans get ruled unconstitutional then MA will continue its ban on carrying mags greater than 10. They’ll claim the ruling only applies to home and ranges. Then it will require another 20 years of working through the courts.
 
PappyM3 said:
While I agree with you, I bet if magazine bans get ruled unconstitutional then MA will continue its ban on carrying mags greater than 10. They’ll claim the ruling only applies to home and ranges. Then it will require another 20 years of working through the courts.
Click to expand...
I dont think that would hold up to the standards set by Bruen. If the court ever strikes down mag bans, it has said in the past magazines are equal in their eyes as firearms regarding their constitutional protection. Given that would be a carry based law, the court has been much more receptive to those cases than feature based bans.

Only parts of 2nd Amendment that the court hasn't been favorable to is reducing the current definitions of a Prohibited Person. That's why anyone who dates as a gun owner is playing with fire.
 
T-Unit said:
I dont think that would hold up to the standards set by Bruen. If the court ever strikes down mag bans, it has said in the past magazines are equal in their eyes as firearms regarding their constitutional protection. Given that would be a carry based law, the court has been much more receptive to those cases than feature based bans.
Click to expand...
I agree. I tend to think if the court says standard capacity magazines are protected then it will be for self defense away from the home. Hopefully.
 
PappyM3 said:
While I agree with you, I bet if magazine bans get ruled unconstitutional then MA will continue its ban on carrying mags greater than 10. They’ll claim the ruling only applies to home and ranges. Then it will require another 20 years of working through the courts.
Click to expand...
Our biggest hope is going to be the DoJ's new Civil Rights Division head whom has fought against restrictions in California for NAGR:
abc7news.com

Judge upholds San Jose's ordinance requiring gun owners to have liability insurance

The City of San Jose is calling it a victory in the fight against gun violence a judge upholding the city's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
abc7news.com abc7news.com
In January 2022, Harmeet K. Dhillon who represented the National Association for Gun Rights spoke at a press conference held to announce the lawsuit:
"It's going to be the law-abiding citizens who actually deter crime by having weapons in their homes who are going to be the ones who bear the burden of this unconstitutional ordinance," Dhillon said last year.
Click to expand...
 
PappyM3 said:
While I agree with you, I bet if magazine bans get ruled unconstitutional then MA will continue its ban on carrying mags greater than 10. They’ll claim the ruling only applies to home and ranges. Then it will require another 20 years of working through the courts.
Click to expand...
If Snope is granted cert, I believe Scotus will put Ocean State on hold then GVR.
That's where the 1st would screw us and I could see your scenario coming true.
If SCOTUS takes Ocean State then we will see bans and restrictions clearly struck down - it's not a hard question, if any magazine is outside the 2nd's protection then ALL magazines are unprotected.
 
pastera said:
If SCOTUS takes Ocean State then we will see bans and restrictions clearly struck down - it's not a hard question, if any magazine is outside the 2nd's protection then ALL magazines are unprotected.
Click to expand...

Would they deny Ocean state cert tomorrow? Or would they re-list it with snope until snope is granted cert. Basically, if they want to take snope would they still re-list Jennings and Ocean State with Snope? Sorry if I asked that confusingly, but you understand what I’m trying to get at.
 
Waher said:
Our biggest hope is going to be the DoJ's new Civil Rights Division head whom has fought against restrictions in California for NAGR:
abc7news.com

Judge upholds San Jose's ordinance requiring gun owners to have liability insurance

The City of San Jose is calling it a victory in the fight against gun violence a judge upholding the city's Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance.
abc7news.com abc7news.com
Click to expand...

Any relation to Dhillon Precision, the reloading press people?
 
rogues said:
It's not there. No idea what that means. Follow the link here

Edit - I'm reading from Mark SMith that Snope and Ocean State Tactical will be re-listed later today, which is not bad news from what I understand.
Click to expand...
Link? (Where are you reading this) if you don’t mind.
 
Last edited:
Parker Schreiber said:
The most likely reason is that one or more justices is going to publish a dissent from the decision on cert. If so, I fear it's Thomas and they voted to deny cert in the other cases as well.
Click to expand...
i would be extremely surprised if in this political climate scotus would want to touch 2A at all. but it is just me.
 
paul73 said:
i would be extremely surprised if in this political climate scotus would want to touch 2A at all. but it is just me.
Click to expand...
I agree 1000%. How’s it gonna look to take away the states decisions on gun control when they pretty much just gave roe v wade back to the states? Fact is the states that don’t want Gun control don’t have it and the ones who do want it have it and I believe (unfortunately) that is how it will stay. :/ Gonna hope I’m wrong of course 🤞
 
Thumopolis said:
How’s it gonna look to take away the states decisions on gun control when they pretty much just gave roe v wade back to the states?
Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. One is an enumerated right and the other is not.

If they deny cert to these cases, it won't be because of the Dobbs decision.
 
Thumopolis said:
I agree 1000%. How’s it gonna look to take away the states decisions on gun control when they pretty much just gave roe v wade back to the states? Fact is the states that don’t want Gun control don’t have it and the ones who do want it have it and I believe (unfortunately) that is how it will stay. :/ Gonna hope I’m wrong of course 🤞
Click to expand...


Pretty simple

Show me the right to abortion in the constitution..,
 
p.tice said:
They denied Jennings looks like but can’t find the others.


Click to expand...
Jennings should have been denied - it presupposes facts currently before the court - assault weapons in Snope and magazines in Ocean State.

If is not clear that those items are constitutionally protected then banning them is not an infringement therefore cannot rise to irreparable injury.
This is a narrow reading but I believe the correct reading of why it was denied.
 

Similar threads

Garland v. VanDerStok
Replies
0
Views
103
lutstribe
L
SCOTUS denies cert on two 2A cases.
Replies
2
Views
360
MickeyD’s
M
Run to Home Base Fundraising
Replies
1
Views
79
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
Severus Semi-Auto Snape
What states still have “94” AWB in place?
Replies
10
Views
526
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
  • Poll Poll
Which gun to shoot for complete gun n00b?
2
Replies
56
Views
745
Cuz
Cuz
Back
Top Bottom